"Mr Speaker, can I first tell the House that I have sent messages of condolence to President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon following the break-up of the 'Columbia' space shuttle on Saturday. This was a tragedy not just for the seven astronauts and their families but for their countries and for all who value space exploration. I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our sadness and sympathy.
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on my visit to Washington.
"In addition to Iraq, President Bush and I discussed the Middle East peace process, Afghanistan, global poverty and development. On the first, we agreed on the vital necessity of making progress based on the twin state solution: Israel, confident of its own security; and a Palestinian state that is viable. I am convinced that there is now a real wish across the world to push this process forward and I hope that we can take further steps on this issue soon. I believe that it is of fundamental importance not just to peace in the Middle East but to the peace of the world.
"But the immediate focus of the visit was Iraq. Over the past week, in addition to meeting President Bush, I have seen Prime Minister Aznar, President Mbeki, Prime Minister Berlusconi and Prince Saud. Today, I have spoken to President Chirac. After this Statement, I shall be speaking to President Putin and I have also spoken to the Prime Ministers of Turkey, Canada, Greece, Poland, Portugal and Australia. I shall meet President Chirac tomorrow. In addition, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with his opposite numbers from countries on the UN Security Council, in the European Union and in the Middle East, and he will be in New York for UN meetings later this week.
"We are entering the final phase of a 12-year history of the disarmament of Iraq. The duty on Saddam to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction was a central part of the cease-fire agreement at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. In a series of 17 resolutions since then, the UN Security Council has put Saddam under 27 separate and categorical obligations: to give full, final and complete declarations on its weapons programmes; to give inspectors unconditional and unrestricted access; to cease the concealment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction; and to co-operate fully with the inspectors in the disarmament of all its weapons of mass destruction. He has consistently flouted these obligations, which is why for years there has been a sanctions regime against Iraq, which, because of the way Saddam has applied it, has caused wholly unnecessary suffering to the Iraqi people.
"Last November the United Nations Security Council concluded unanimously that Iraq was still in material breach of UN resolutions. Saddam was given—I quote—'a final opportunity' to comply with his disarmament obligations. Resolution 1441 imposed on Saddam a duty to give,
'a currently accurate, full and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems'; and to provide,
'immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted and private access', to all people whom the inspectors wish to interview,
"in the mode or location", of the inspectors' choice; and also to co-operate actively and fully with all the inspectors' demands.
"Failure by Iraq at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution was said in terms to constitute a further material breach. Eight weeks have now passed since Saddam was given his final chance. Six hundred weeks have passed since he was given his first chance.
"The evidence of co-operation withheld is unmistakable. He has still not answered the questions concerning thousands of missing munitions and tonnes of chemical and biological agents unaccounted for. Rocket warheads with chemical weapons capacity have been found by the inspectors. They should have been declared. Classified documents of relevance to Iraq's past nuclear programme have been discovered in a scientist's private house. They should have been handed over. Of the first 11 documents specifically requested by the inspectors, only three have been produced. Not a single interviewee has come to an appointment with the inspectors without official minders.
"As the report which we published at the weekend makes clear, and which I have placed in the Library of the House, there is a huge infrastructure of deception and concealment designed to prevent the inspectors from doing their job. US Secretary of State Colin Powell will report further to the United Nations on this on Wednesday.
"As Dr Blix, the UN Chief Inspector, reported last week:
'Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament which was demanded of it'.
He said that Iraq's declaration seemed to contain no new evidence; that there are indications that Iraq has weaponised the nerve agent VX, one of the most toxic ever developed; that there are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it has declared; and that the discovery of chemical rocket warheads could be the tip of an iceberg.
"The situation could not therefore be clearer. There is a duty on Saddam to co-operate fully. At present he is not co-operating fully. Failure to do so is a material breach of Resolution 1441. Should Dr Blix continue to report Iraqi non-co-operation, a second resolution should be passed confirming such a material breach. President Bush and I agreed we should seek maximum support for such a resolution, provided, as ever, that seeking such a resolution is a way of resolving the issue, not delaying or avoiding dealing with it at all. I continue to believe that the United Nations is the right way to proceed. There is an integrity in the process set out in 1441 and we should follow it.
"We, of course, discussed the fact that weapons of mass destruction are not the only threat we face and Iraq is not the only country posing a risk in respect of weapons of mass destruction. Over the past few weeks, we have seen powerful evidence of the continuing terrorist threat: the suspected ricin plot in London and Manchester; Al'Qaeda experiments in Afghanistan to develop chemical, biological and radiological weapons; the arrests of those linked to Al'Qaeda in Spain and France; and further arrests in Italy.
"What is more, many of these arrests show the terrorist groups actively seeking to use chemical or biological means to cause as much death and injury and suffering as they can. We know from 11th September that these terrorists have no demands that could ever be negotiated upon, no constraint in terms of finance and numbers to carry out terrorist acts and no compunction in taking human life.
"At the same time, we know, too, that Iraq is not alone in developing weapons of mass destruction; that there are unstable, fiercely repressive states either proliferating or trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, like North Korea.
"I repeat my warning: unless we take a decisive stand now as an international community, it is only a matter of time before these threats come together. That means pursuing international terrorism across the world in all its forms. It means confronting nations defying the world over WMD.
"That is why a signal of weakness over Iraq is not only wrong in its own terms. Show weakness now and no one will ever believe us when we try to show strength in the future. All our history—especially British history—points to this lesson. No one wants conflict. Even now, war could be avoided if Saddam did what he is supposed to do. But if, having made a demand backed up by a threat of force, we fail to enforce that demand, the result will not be peace or security. It will simply be returning to confront the issue again at a later time with the world less stable, the will of the international community less certain, and those repressive states or terrorist groups who would destroy our way of life, emboldened and undeterred.
"Even now, I hope that conflict with Iraq can be avoided. Even now, I hope Saddam can come to his senses, co-operate fully and disarm peacefully, as the UN has demanded. But if he does not, if he rejects the peaceful route, then he must be disarmed by force. If we have to go down this route, we shall do all we can to minimise the risks to the people of Iraq, and we give an absolute undertaking to protect Iraq's territorial integrity. Our quarrel has never been with the Iraqi people but with Saddam.
"But Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and the threats they pose to the world must be confronted. In doing so, this country, and our armed forces, will be helping the long-term peace and security of Britain and the world".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I also join him in offering condolences to the families of the crew of "Columbia" who lost their lives this weekend in so tragic a manner. The actions of those on board have been called by many a selfless sacrifice for scientific progress. Sadness over the tragedy temporarily drew the focus away from our worries over the impending crisis in Iraq. It is to that increasing threat of war that I now return.
We on this side of the House encouraged the pursuit of a second resolution from the United Nations. A second resolution is not necessary, but it is highly desirable. It would give Saddam Hussein a firm opportunity to consider the advantages inherent in co-operation and disarmament. However, it should not be used as an excuse for delay. We should not deceive ourselves that time will be the solution. Saddam Hussein's track record has not shown us that he is a man to be swayed by rational argument; rather one who relies on internal oppression, violence and the development of weapons of mass destruction to drive across his own opinions.
For too long, Saddam Hussein's unchecked situation has been an inspiration for "rogue states" and terrorist groups. Any failure to call him to account will provide the influence they crave to sustain their destructive activities; a beacon to those who look upon deadly weapons as the only alternative.
I understand that Hans Blix's main concern is that Iraq is not actively co-operating with the weapons inspectors and that for months his team has been searching as though for a needle in a haystack, when surely it was for Iraq from the very start to account for discrepancies in its weapons declaration and assist fully in the task. It is increasingly obvious that that never was and never will be Saddam Hussein's intention.
When the Prime Minister was briefed by President Bush this weekend on Secretary Colin Powell's evidence on Iraq to the Security Council, was he told precisely what the content of those documents would be? No doubt they will expose the dangers that Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, but does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is not only the dangers to the United States that need to be spelt out, but all those specific to the United Kingdom? We are entitled to as much information as is available and relevant, and that is vital when a substantial number of British troops have already been deployed to the Gulf and we hear that more are to follow later this week.
Is a new UK dossier being prepared? If so, when will it be published? How does that fit in with the report which the Statement said had been placed in the Library today? Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the report is also in the Library of this House? I have not had sight of it. However, what is the difference between it and the dossier published some months ago?
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also agree that we need to encourage a debate in this House on the unfolding situation with respect to Iraq. Perhaps he will indicate when he thinks the best time for that would be. It is in any case all part of making the case against Saddam Hussein to the British people.
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the Prime Minister's consistent support of the UN route shows an inherent belief that this is not just an American war but a united stand against the forces of terrorism? The fact that the United Kingdom is now one of seven European countries that have written in support of Resolution 1441 is without doubt an important step forward. Is it right that the Germans and the French were not in fact asked to sign that document? When the Prime Minister meets President Chirac tomorrow, will France's required support for a second resolution be at the top of their agenda? Will the Prime Minister make it clear to the President that blocking defensive forces to Turkey under the auspices of NATO would be unacceptable?
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that the only thing that can now stop military action is disarmament by Saddam Hussein? He has been given a second chance once too often and it is now time for him to suffer the consequences of his repeated failure to disarm. Our threats toward his regime have been voiced too long and too loudly now to be allowed to appear empty. No one wishes to go to war, but the dangers of stopping now may be greater than going ahead.
My Lords, I should like to apologise on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who cannot be here today. I am taking the Statement in her stead. We on these Benches associate ourselves also with the sympathy for the astronauts who very sadly lost their lives at the weekend.
We on these Benches support the efforts that the Prime Minister has been making to ensure that the containment of Iraq continues to be managed multilaterally by the United Nations and that, as far as possible, Iraq should be disarmed through inspection and multilateral action. We note the very careful balancing act in which the Prime Minister has had to balance the unilateral language which is unfortunately the way in which the Bush administration present their case and the much more multilateral language which we hear from our own Prime Minister and a number of others. Will the Leader of the House just confirm that President Bush has now agreed that there will be a second UN resolution and that the inspectors will be given the further time that they need, although we are not yet sure how long that will be? Can he also reassure us that the Government and the United States have now provided as much intelligence and advance equipment as they possibly can to ensure that the inspectors know as much as they can about what they may be looking for?
How does the Prime Minister intend to manage the balance between a critical co-operation with the United States and ensuring as far as possible that European governments manage to stay together? It has been said very many times that British influence in Washington depends in the long run on Britain being seen to speak for Europe. Over the past few days, Europe has spoken with a number of different voices. Those of us who deplored the unilateralism of which the German Government spoke some months ago were not entirely happy that Mr Aznar, with our own Prime Minister, repeated that mistake by explicitly dividing the European Union again. We very much hope that the summit at Le Touquet will manage to achieve a rather greater commonality of view between the French and the British Governments.
Can the noble and learned Lord say a little more about the phrase at the beginning of his speech, in which he said that we hoped to have parallel progress again with the Arab-Israeli conflict? On the first page we are told that:
"I hope we can take further steps", on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Again, we are told that that will take place "soon". It is difficult to see what those further steps will be or, indeed, how soon they will be taken. It is important that the matter is not left until after whatever military action there may have to be in Iraq.
What worries us most on these Benches is the extent to which the questions of rogue states, weapons of mass destruction and terrorism are conflated, as they are again in this Statement. Terrorism is a real, long-term problem, and it will not be resolved by military intervention in Iraq or by disarming Iraq. What worries many of us about what we hear from Washington at the moment is what we perceive as a lack of understanding about the long-term nature of the terrorist problem in the Muslim world. We need to be sure that we are standing up for universal values and not simply Western values, let alone American values. As we know from our own experience, "pursuing terrorism across the world" is only part of how one copes with the long-term terrorist threat. An upsurge of terrorism after an invasion of Iraq is a possibility for us. Therefore, how we manage our relations with the Muslim world as a whole and how we present the rationale for intervention in Iraq is clearly of great importance.
Was there a discussion between the Prime Minister and the President about how Iraq is to be handled after any military intervention, given that the odds on such an intervention occurring are now very high? I was told by a group of Americans whom I met yesterday that they are confident that the British will take a leading role in rebuilding Iraq after the invasion because we are so good at nation-building. That may have serious implications for public expenditure in this country. It would be useful to know something about how far Britain has committed itself to rebuilding Iraq after any intervention.
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Wallace, not least because of the unity of purpose that they described. It is necessary at this time that our enemies recognise that this is a united kingdom. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there is no difference in approach between us. It is highly desirable to have the second resolution. Both noble Lords asked about that and I can answer their questions best by returning to my Statement. For the assistance of your Lordships, I repeat:
"Should Dr Blix continue to report Iraqi non-co-operation, a second resolution should be passed confirming such a material breach".
In response to the specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I said:
"President Bush and I agreed we should seek maximum support for such a resolution".
That is pretty unambiguous. The tributes paid to the Prime Minister and Jack Straw were generous but well-deserved. The efforts that they have made and the satisfactory consequences that have resulted are not fully understood. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have followed a policy that is in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the wider international community, including the United Nations. Without being unduly divisive or contentious, I hope that I can say that they have done so much more effectively than some of our colleagues in Europe.
So far as concerns the evidence on Iraq, there is a dossier in the Library, available to all. I am told—I should not say this—that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has just been down to get a copy. I do not think that I can usefully encapsulate the difference between that new document and the earlier dossier—it is better to let your Lordships read and compare them. However, there is more material in the updated document because time has passed since the publication of the original. I agree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, this is not simply the United Kingdom's business.
The noble Lord asked a question about debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, wrote to me. I received her letter this morning and have replied today. I am sure that she will not mind if I share with the House what I said in my letter to her. I wrote:
"We recalled the House on
It is probably better that both Houses have a debate on the same day. Jack Straw has been absolutely scrupulous in keeping the House of Commons informed—returning from the United States to keep them fully briefed and then going back there again. Therefore, I do not believe that anyone could say that he has not taken Parliament's interests into account.
I think that it is true that the Germans and the French were not invited to sign. Perhaps telephone communications between Berlin, London and Paris were not marvellous—I am not quite sure. However, we should consider those who did sign. The fact that they did so is an indication of the powerful success that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been enjoying. I do not know what the Prime Minister will say to M Chirac tomorrow, and it would be better if I did not speculate.
The final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right. There is no way out of this impasse unless Saddam Hussein disarms, as he is required to do by the obligations laid upon him in international law and by the United Nations. Disarmament will have to come about one way or another. No one wants war, and no one wants terrorism and unrestrained activity of the sort with which we are now becoming familiar.
I dealt with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, about President Bush. We are sharing intelligence with the inspectors as appropriate. The noble Lord asked what is to happen with regard to the Middle East peace process—a question that I know to be of interest to many of your Lordships. At the moment, the Israeli elections have only just been concluded; no government have been formed in the state of Israel and circumstances are shifting and changing. I repeat that the Prime Minister is absolutely determined to push the process forward and hopes that we shall be able to take further steps on the issue soon. The United States is an extremely important player in that scenario. That is not to say that we should blindly follow the United States, but we need to recognise today's realpolitik.
The noble Lord is right—we cannot simply attempt to bomb terrorism out of existence, whether by bombing a state, a camp or a training organisation. We must use diplomatic, political and financial methods, which are very important. We must also use military and police methods. As the noble Lord rightly said, we must examine the causes of terrorism, which seems to be becoming almost nihilistic and anarchistic in the sense that some terrorism was in the latter part of the 19th century.
I hope that I have dealt with the questions that were put. This is a House, not a government, matter and I shall keep carefully in mind the necessity of having a debate when it is appropriate to do so. I hope that your Lordships think that when requests have been made to me in the past I have done my best to meet reasonable requirements.
My Lords, I apologise for coming in late during the Statement, but I have read it and heard the responses. As one who regards war as a very untidy resort, and the necessity of making it the last resort, I would like to know whether the Leader of the House can add to the force of the argument in favour of war by being more open about what I regard as the crucial question of the missing munitions. It is stated that thousands of tonnes of munitions and chemical and biological agents are unaccounted for, but we have never been told at what point their existence was identified and at what point they disappeared. I believe that if people were better aware of the extent of the threat posed by Iraqi intransigence they might be better prepared to take offensive action against it.
My Lords, the best answer I can offer the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is to commend to him the report of Dr Blix, which is very careful, understated and reasoned. One finds a good deal of material there about what has been the failure. Fundamentally, United Nations Resolution 1441, which, I repeat to noble Lords, was the "final chance"—I stress that I am quoting and that this is not politicians' gloss—required not, as Dr Blix rather attractively said, simply acquiescence in process but positive proactive co-operation. That is what he has not had. There has been no agreement, for instance, that U2 flights can overfly Iraq; that would be enormous benefit to the inspectors. There has been no agreement for a time about helicopter visits and there has been no acquiescence—to put it at its most neutral—in unfettered interviews with those who may have information. Dr Blix has laid out a catalogue—rather a gloomy and dismal one—which is all the more devastating, in my view, because its language is understated and quite restrained.
My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to answer more fully the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? It concerned what happens after the war, where our responsibilities will lie, and whether there are any commitments in terms of the United Kingdom's role in this regard.
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right; I do not believe that I did the question sufficient justice. The Prime Minister and President George W. Bush discussed questions about the situation after the conflict. This is plainly an issue of real importance. Discussions are continuing. We find an element of an answer in the Statement in which we give a guarantee of territorial integrity. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that DfID has contingency plans and that a vast humanitarian effort will be required. I cannot say that the plans are entirely concluded; if they were, noble Lords would be surprised and rather disappointed, because this situation is developing constantly. I take the point implicitly made by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran: there is no purpose in limiting our horizons to any immediate attack if that becomes an unfortunate necessity. After the attack will be our historic responsibility.
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I and certainly some others regard war as the very last resort? Some of us are puzzled about why diplomatic efforts are not made by the United Nations, the United States and the United Kingdom to try to prevent war not simply through the inspectors but by diplomatic means; we should like to have an answer. Will the noble and learned Lord also comment on the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence on yesterday's Parliament programme, I believe, that Britain would be preparing to use nuclear weapons? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, shakes his head but that is what Mr Hoon said; I listened to his words and saw the programme. Bearing in mind that the inspectors have said that there is no trace of Iraq having any weapons, under what circumstances would such weapons be used?
My Lords, there are two aspects to the questions of my noble friend. First, is war the last resort? Plainly, yes. Secondly, have diplomatic efforts been used? Plainly, yes—since 1991. Saddam Hussein has been in breach of his international legal obligations since 1991. He took on those obligations as a necessary precondition to the end of the Gulf War. I stress that that was 12 years ago. If my noble friend says that we should have done more by diplomacy, I gently remind him that the Prime Minister was bitterly criticised for having the courage to go to Syria and subject himself to vigorous cross-questioning on television. Syria signed up to Resolution 1441. If that is not a triumph for diplomacy, I am not sure how I should otherwise recognise one.
The Secretary of State for Defence said that in the most extreme circumstances—which he is not contemplating—and consistent with international law, we are entitled to use such means as are available to defend the security of this country. After all, a paramount duty of any government is to secure the safety of its citizens. What the Secretary of State said—it bears reading with care—is no more than a statement of international law and the rights that that gives to sovereign states.
My Lords, I am glad that the Prime Minister did not forget to mention in the Statement—if in passing—the problem of North Korea. That problem scares me much more than anything else. I believe that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that President Bush cannot be a policeman to the world. Next time the Prime Minister talks to the President, will he suggest that the real country to deal with North Korea is China, which is next door to North Korea and close in relationship, as we all remember from the Korean war? We should be trying to widen the number of nations that come with us in seeking to prevent future terrorism.
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The situation in North Korea is significantly worrying. This matter does not involve simply the references in the Statement; noble Lords will be aware of the Prime Minister's Statement in the Commons last week, which did not meet with universal approval from those who did not pay any attention to what he was saying. The noble Lord is right to say that the situation in North Korea is deeply worrying. We cannot avoid dealing with Iraq because of other dangers. The noble Lord is right to say that the United States cannot be the policeman for the world. That is why the whole cast of British foreign policy since 1997 has been to follow the United Nations route—successfully, so far. Again, the noble Lord rightly says that we have to engage other large countries in what used to be called their spheres of influence. China is one—in the North Korean context, I entirely agree.
On general multilateralism, I shall not repeat the list of statesmen and heads of government whom the Prime Minister consulted within the past few days before going to see President Bush. He will be continuing those efforts when he sees M Chirac tomorrow.
My Lords, I have two rather small questions about the way in which this House copes with the unfolding crisis. First, some of us have been asking for many weeks now for an additional dossier to improve on the original dossier, which we considered not very effective in making the case about why Iraq is involved in global terrorism and is such a direct danger to this country. We were repeatedly told that such a document was not necessary or planned. However, we then read in the Sunday newspapers that it would indeed be issued, and we learn in the Statement today that there is such a dossier or report and that it has been placed in the Library. Is it not reasonable that those who were preparing to respond to the Statement, including my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and others, might have expected to receive notification of the publication of a document for which we have been asking for many weeks? I am sorry if that sounds rather like a grumble—but it is a grumble.
Secondly, I believe that the noble and learned Lord said that it would be best if, when we have a debate in this House, it should be on the same day as the debate in another place. Will he reconsider that? This House has an enormously powerful input to make to the broader scene, to defence issues and to geographical and geopolitical issues, which may not get a proper airing in the Commons. If we have our debate on the same day as the Commons, it will be lost completely in the media; if we have it on another day, we could make a genuine contribution that matches what this House can give to such debates.
My Lords, neither of the noble Lord's points is a grumble. I was simply reciting what I had said in the letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, as it would have been impolite not to have done so. I pointed out that it is normal to co-ordinate closely the involvement of the two Houses. Normally we would not promote a debate in the Lords unless we proposed to do the same in the Commons. I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord said. Many neutral observers—not those sitting on the red Benches—felt that the quality of our full debate on Iraq was very high indeed. I make no further comparison.
It is fair to say that the dossier is of a different quality from the first one. It is headed:
"Iraq—its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation".
It is in three parts: the first concerns how Iraq's security organisations operate to conceal weapons of mass destruction; part two gives up-to-date details of Iraq's network of intelligence and security organisations; and part three shows the effects of the security apparatus on the ordinary people of Iraq. So it is somewhat different in nature.
On whether it would have been helpful for your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to have had prior notification, that is a reasonable point. I had the same notification as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it is now important that the Prime Minister should continue upon the courageous and clear-sighted course that he has taken up to now in trying, as best he can, to ensure that the problem is solved through the United Nations, while making it clear that, if it cannot be solved in that way, force may have to be used? I hope that the Prime Minister will not be seduced by the voices of those who cannot accept that in any circumstances military force should be used as an instrument of foreign policy.
Two matters that have been raised in the course of this debate concern me. One is that we should consider not only American interests, but also British interests. Surely we should consider interests far wider than those. The wider world shares the values and beliefs that we in this country hold to. The second point concerns the statement that in this conflict we must ensure that we uphold not just western values. Surely it is precisely western values, as we understand them, that are under threat from international terrorism and it is those values that we are trying to uphold.
My Lords, the first observation of the noble Lord will be extremely well received by the Prime Minister. It is gratifying to have support from such a quarter. I refer back to what I read out on behalf of the Prime Minister, which I believe will satisfy or reassure the noble Lord:
"President Bush and I agreed we should seek maximum support for such a resolution"— there is then the critical proviso—
"provided, as ever, that seeking such a resolution is a way of resolving the issue not delaying or avoiding dealing with it at all".
I do not believe that it was said that foreign policy should take into account simply United Kingdom and United States interests. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, made precisely the contrary point. He said that this is a situation of such gravity that it affects the whole of the world and that it must be viewed in an international context.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also said that we must not narrowly consider ourselves to be superior in every respect. On this occasion my mind chimes with his and not with the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. Humanitarian values are not contained within the sole repository of western nations.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a loose linkage between the Iraqi issue and the Israeli/Palestinian issue and that it would be desirable to emerge from this period of modern history with a resolution to both problems? Will the noble and learned Lord assure the House that both the British Government and the American Government will use the present uncertain phase in Israeli politics to try to ensure that the Israeli Government adopt a conciliatory attitude towards the outcome, rather than an intransigent attitude towards what occurs in future?
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government's intention is to use their best endeavours to that purpose. The United States, for obvious historic cultural and traditional reasons, has a close connection with the state of Israel. Israel has many supporters there as it does here. I refer back to what the Prime Minister said at the Labour Party conference, that we must arrive at final status negotiations on the basis of the 1967 boundaries. I hope that it is not without significance to your Lordships that the reference to which the noble Lord pointed is at the beginning of the Statement. It was not there by chance.
My Lords, as one who supports the Government's policy on Iraq and notably the line that the Prime Minister has taken throughout, it seems to me of crucial importance that a clear and persuasive case is made now that stands up to public scrutiny. In that connection my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has asked one question about which an additional word may be said: that is the connection between Iraq and terrorism. As I understand it, the issue of Iraq is one of weapons of mass destruction and, although there may be a linkage to terrorism, the two matters are not the same. He spoke of conflating them. Would the noble and learned Lord care to add a word on that important point?
My Lords, the two are not identical but they may have similar components. The real case for the use of armed force against Iraq depends entirely on international law and significantly, but not entirely, on Resolution 1441 and, if there is to be a second resolution, on that. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have endlessly repeated—I too have repeated to your Lordships on many occasions—that the United Kingdom's policy is to act consistent with the rules of international law.
Therefore, essentially Iraq is liable to armed force sanctions if that is the ultimate necessity because of its disobedience to the mandatory instructions of the United Nations. I am not in a position to speculate exactly what Secretary of State Colin Powell will say on Wednesday. Perhaps we should wait to hear what he has to say. I take the point made by the noble Lord that the two should not be conflated, even when they are coincident in part. Al'Qaeda is not a state; Iraq is. Al'Qaeda operates in various states, but I agree that the state of Afghanistan does not need to be pursued and punished endlessly because Al'Qaeda operates there. If Al'Qaeda ceases to operate there, different circumstances will arise. The truth is that we are in a period of uncertainty that can be met only by resolution and unity, which I am glad your Lordships have shown.